On this special edition of Questions For Corbett James is joined by Corbett Report video editor Broc West to answer your questions on the 28 pages, the Japanese economy, CS Lewis and Shakespeare and much more. Also, we tackle the question of whether the Palestinians were celebrating on 9/11. (Spoiler: they weren’t.)

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

I recently read That Hideous Strength, by C.S. Lewis. I rather enjoyed it. Here is a bit of the description from cslewis.com:
A sinister technocratic organization is gaining power throughout Europe with a plan to “recondition” society, and it is up to Ransom and his friends to squelch this threat by applying age-old wisdom to a new universe dominated by science. The two groups struggle to a climactic resolution that brings the Space Trilogy to a magnificent, crashing close.

Hi James, glad you answered that Molyneux question, as I watched that video and was wondering the same thing. I can’t know the thoughts of the original questioner, but from my point of view any debate wouldn’t be about convincing Stefan or even about him at all. The reason I would like to see a real debate is for his audience that doesn’t follow you too (you actually introduced me to Stef via the peaceful parenting video). Going through the comments, it seems they need to be introduced to the research from someone who can actually form coherent thoughts.

I know what you are saying about who cares what anyone thinks and whatnot but I still think it would be valuable to some of his audience to hear this research.
Btw awesome shirt James!

Yes, Steebs (and James), I agree. I don’t care what Molyneux thinks either, but his audience is huge and the way he just dismissed the topic as unimportant will have an influence on his listeners.

I also thought it was interesting that he holds that viewpoint, considering the fact that he is a frequent guest and guest host on many other alt-media shows. He even had G. Edward Griffin on his show recently, who definitely seems to be on the side of 911 truth. If Griffin knew Stefan’s stance on 911, vaccines, GMOs, etc., I can’t imagine he would have still done the interview.

Note that Stefan doesn’t *actually* think 9/11 was not a conspiracy. He’s just pretending, because he’s an establishment shill now. For some reasoning to support this, CTRL+F for my other comment in this thread.

The stairs are a nice example. Do you live somewhere there is a road? That road is built privately and paid for by the homeowner or apartment builder. Usage is free based on your paying for the road. Also water, power, sewer, firefighting access are all built by private contractors and you paid for them. The exception is like rt 666 which is built by the government taxes. So we have millions of miles of roads, sewers, water and electric and cable systems all built privately and fully paid for by individuals. The government demands this as the cost of authorizing construction.

Great QFC. Eagerly awaiting the Shakespeare authorship episode. For CR members that enjoy reading about literary intrigue, read “Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein’s True Creator”, by Scott D. de Hart. Listening to your brief thoughts reminded me of your comments regarding Thomas Paine being the true author of the Declaration of Independence. Please do an episode on that topic!

the authorship question has been solved : Sir Henry Neville (1562-1615), also grandfather of the (homonymous) author of Plato Redivivus.

A house with Plantagenet lineage (from John of Gaunt), intermarried with several key families in the later creation of Anglo-Venetia proper (the City of London), above all the Cecils, while the author himself was an investor in the establishment of the colony of Virginia, inter multa alia.

The case is set forth in a single tome published in 2005, complex but still quite readable :

The completeness of the identification extends to many small but highly significant details ; that despite his very modest means and even more dubious character, William Shakespeare was a relative of the Nevilles (through his mother) and the two families owned adjacent properties in Berkshire (albeit the Shakespeare holding a tiny plot compared to the Neville latifundium)

Here’s a copy of the comment I just left on yt: I’ve read up on this.. The best reads (for me) so far have been “Shakespeare Identified” by Looney -online in pdf. Ogburn’s “The Mysterious William Shakespeare” is excellent. Diana Price’s “Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography’, “Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom” by Beauclerk. “Shakespeare Suppressed” by Chiljan, “Shakespeare by Another Name” by Anderson (is on p2p). And the one Im reading atm “The Shakespeare Guide To Italy: Retracing The Bard’s Unknown Travels” by Roe, the conclusions of which show that whomever wrote the works spent a lot of time there. As many of the plays (10)are set in Italy as In England.

No other person put forth as a possible candidate is nearly as compelling as the case for Edward de Vere, so far (the books mentioned above deal with him) because of the number of striking parallels between the works and the events of his life. I think after anyone reads up and compares they will find Oxford is far and away the most likely candidate.

Thanks Alucientes, I’ve not read anything about the de Vere case and will look into it.

However your comment on the Italian tour does a disservice to the James & Rubinstein case for Neville. Most of their book is focused on a detailed chronological and content comparison between Neville’s life and the original performances of each of the plays, with some amazing correspondences — perhaps most of all the convergence of the France / French court plays (which include passages in French) with Neville’s stint as Eliz. I ambassador to France.
But for all that in its superb attention to detail, the most meaty pieces of evidence are documentary, analysis of the Sonnets dedicated to Lord Southampton, and prosopographic studies — by which I mean everyone connected with the eventual publication of the plays being relatives or friends of Neville.
After the failure of the Essex plot everyone involved was quickly executed or pardoned, excepting only Southampton and Neville, who were confined to the Tower for several years pending execution, but eventually pardoned. The authors make an excellent case for the author of the Sonnets having formed a particularly close friendship with Southampton under such perilous circumstances, as well as pointing out that the chronology of the “entowerment” coincides with the great division in the character of the plays between buffoonery + nationalistic historical, to authentic and profound tragedy, beginning of course with Hamlet.

But still, the documents they present are compelling and read in conjunction with the rest the overall case is overwhelming. I’d advise you to read the book and see these documents.

To each his own in judging the compelling (and non), and again thanks for pointing out alternatives I haven’t investigated.
But its so wrong to be so trivializing and dismissive of such a great case, unless you’ve read it, understood it and can dismantle it in detail, or with decisive facts that the authors may have overlooked or (God forbid!) suppressed.

I see that in focusing on a summary of the James/Rubinstein case I forgot to address the main point you raised and why I regard it as insignificant to the point of trivial.

It fallaciously assumes that the minute localized details of the Italian plays must be due to the author’s personal observation alone.

The author should evidently have been familiar with some Italian towns from personal experience, and acquired a fairly deep or abiding interest in north Italian culture. To this extent the biography of a “contender” must match. But no more than that. A writer with such interests could, and should, have fleshed out his personal knowledge in conversation with other well traveled Englishmen ; but above all with northern Italians resident in England.
In fact the Tudor 16th century is the era of the beginnings of Anglo-Venetia under the impulse of the War of the League of Cambrai, so disastrous to Venetian power and prosperity. We can ignore for present purposes whether they brought that down on their own heads. Nevertheless in subsequent decades several of the wealthiest Venetian oligarchic houses transferred themselves and their retinues and their all-important fondi to London, where they wasted little time inter-marrying with locals who mattered, in Anglicizing themselves and in Venetianizing the English upper classes.

James, I also highly recommend That Hideous Strength. It’s the third book of Lewis’s Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra are the other two) and though it might be better to read them in order, you can still read the third book on its own as it is loosely independent of the other two.

Surprised by Joy is by far the least engaging book by C.S. Lewis I have ever read and is definitely the worst one to judge his writings by. If I recall correctly, he did not want to write about himself because he didn’t believe it would result in a good book and he was probably right. If you want to gain some insight into his conversion to theism or arguments against atheism, you’ll find he does this much better in his other writings. That Hideous Strength indirectly touches on this theme as well, but more directly it is about the controlling and shaping of society.

Upon further thought, I would say Till We Have Faces might be the best introduction into Lewis’s writing. If you don’t already appreciate his theology and philosophy, then many of his books will be difficult to grasp – even confusing. Till We Have Faces is a Greek story which Lewis retells and may be his most beautifully written books in terms of pure literature.

James, If you’re allusions to people who look at one video and commit a logical fallacy, concluding that since that video is a fraud, a certain event didn’t happen–ridiculously vague–refer to Sandy Hoax/Boston Non-Bombing, you are still missing the mark.

If you have not looked into those two faux events, you should do so. We are NOT talking about analyzing one snippet of a video.

In further reference to C.S. Lewis, there is a podcast on The Mind Renewed website that is related to C.S.Lewis. I believe it is pocast number 100. I too have read Lewis’ Space Trilogy, and would heartily concur with the above sentiments regarding the trilogy. I have found it worthwhile enough to have read it more than once. I believe that it was Lewis who is believed to have said that any good book is worth reading more than once.

Again, thanks for all your tremendous work, James (and Broc!), and good to see a fellow Aussie with you!!
Trust the new abode is working well, and that the settling in process is going well.

RE: C.S. Lewis
Dear James,
As learned as you are, I was surprised that you have not read C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters.” When you have some time this summer (as if that it possible with your schedule), I highly recommend it.
I, too, was not thrilled by “Surprised by Joy,” but “The Screwtape Letters” is an essential in any library of English literature.
Thank you for all you do.
Wendy

James,
There are reports that could be used to support the idea that the US and its allies support ISIS. There are also reports that say the US is attacking ISIS. If you don’t think the US is attacking ISIS, why treat the information from some reports different than others? How do you decide what reports to believe without falling to confirmation bias? If you do think the US and its allies are attacking ISIS, why would they simultaneously support and attack them?

Neither author cited above claims that Emilia Bassano Lanier was the sole author of Shakespeare’s works, but they cite evidence that she at least participated in the authorship of some of the works, including the Sonnets.

I also suggest that you don’t do an episode on “The Catcher in the Rye” on FLNWO without reading Atwill’s two “Catcher” articles on postflaviana.org. If you ever do discuss “Catcher” or “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, I suggest Joe Atwill as a guest commentator.

Joe also collaborates with Jan Irvin on podcasts that can be found on gnosticmedia.com.

I have watched “Caesar’s Messiah” video many times, because being raised as a Catholic, it was work to overcome the indoctrination, even though I had no involvement with it since childhood. Like Atwill, I was a student of Latin and computer science, so I have a strong sense for how he uses logic to piece together the picture. I still reread portions of the book routinely. The historicity and actuality of Jesus Christ has been the object of perhaps the greatest psyops of all time. Apparently, Christianity has been well understood in a small portion of the population to be based on sheer myth, as an open secret.

What Atwill did, that makes this so powerful, was the discovery that a pattern of literary clues is laid out in the dominant written works of circa 1st century Roman. Publishing a book was like building a building. The typical person lived in a very small world, informed and terrified (no exaggeration) by the Church. What little there was to read for the rare individual who could read, belonged to the Church, and most of them did not read it much. For the Roman government to take control of publishing was quite feasible. This is why the only existent records of the rebels, the Jews, were not found until recently (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.). This was a world where people were to believe based on a very centralized authority on pain of death, but the power was limited and brutal until the discovery that the art form of religion, of myth making, could be so much more powerful and efficient than mere terror and intimidation.

The most valuable door he opens is on the history of the practice of farming people.

James, I think people are asking about you debating Stefan because they’ve concluded that Stefan is being dishonest, and they’d like someone to expose him as such.

The guy claims he’s been, let’s say, “doing philosophy” for more than 30 years. Whatever that might mean in concrete terms, it would involve thinking for yourself and pursuing the truth no matter how you *feel* about it.

Someone like Stefan who’s genius-level intelligent, *and* intent on pursuing the truth, was guaranteed to find the official 9/11 story suspicious, and has therefore investigated it further, and has therefore concluded that yes, there definitely was *some* sort of conspiracy involved.

Furthermore, as a prominent Voluntarist now, knowing everything he knows about governments and how the world works, there’s no reason why he’d be *sincerely resistant* to the idea that 9/11 was a huge conspiracy. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Besides, how much more *should* it take, besides pointing out that a hijacked plane doesn’t just cruise around for an hour and crash into the Pentagon without the most powerful military in the world *letting it happen*?

That’s how we know he’s *full of shit*, and that’s just one *big* sign that he’s a psychopath.. and, of course, that he’s been “co-opted” by the establishment in some way, which is another sign that he’s a psychopath because intentionally misleading the public is not something people with consciences do.

Well said, shiranaihito. I confronted Stefan about some of his worst behaviour with callers and key points of 9-11 and his response on two occasions proved to me that he had his head firmly jammed up his ass. I’ve listened to a few of his recent Truth About videos recently and it’s clear he means truth in an Orwellian sense. His cognitive dissonance cannot be genuine.

On a loosely related tack, I’m disappointed that searching for Dr Judy Wood on corbettreport.com doesn’t return a single mention of her work. Where Did The Towers Go is the only forensic investigation of the destruction of the WTC complex in the public domain. Dr Wood presents the evidence of what happened on the day which conclusively proves that the towers did not collapse nor were they exploded by conventional, thermitic or nuclear explosives.

Dr Wood’s detractors cannot debunk the evidence so they resort to ignoring her work, decredentialising her (referring to her just as Judy Wood,) and mocking her as believing in laser beams from space (an invention of Stephen E.(Cold Fusion) Jones.) The latter is usually a clear sign that the detractor has not read Dr Wood’s book or watched/listened to any of the numerous presentations available on YouTube and checktheevidence.com. In the case of Steven Jones and Alex Jones,that is certainly not an acceptable excuse.

James Corbett has said in the past words to the effect that he wasn’t interested in the squabbling over theories about thermite, nukes and raybeams and that he had not seen anything to convince him of any of these. I’m in full agreement but if you read the book, you’ll know that Dr Wood doesn’t do theories nor does she talk about raybeams.

I think the time has come to deal with this evidence on this forum. It is a question of integrity above all else.

As an engineer who has spent a great deal of time investigating the available data in an effort to understand the cause of the total collapse of the 3 buildings, I contacted Dr. Wood. At first, she was friendly and helpful. That lasted until I expressed some questions about her thinking, when she became very defensive and un-helpful. I wrote that off to a misperception on her part, not unusual among well intentioned people. What I know of her ideas is that they are founded in the strangeness of the photo evidence, and I agree there are strange things. She stated to me that the photo evidence of steel melting was all faked, which is nonsense. The physical evidence for melted steel is simply undeniable, but she likes to say it was “dustified”. I suspect that Dr. Wood read the writing on the wall and concluded that supporting the powers that (shouldn’t) be would be wise, likewise Stefan Molyneaux. Obviously, the powers did not wish to be credited for controlled demolition, so she invoked the Hutchison Effect (with which I was already familiar), and “directed energy”, a term with almost no particular meaning, to explain the destruction and muddy the waters. I cannot rule out the possibility that Hutchison has discovered something important, but because he was not operating as a scientist (publication, much independent replication, conferences, etc.), I have to reserve a lot of doubt there. For Wood to reach a CONCLUSION that this and other mysterious effects can be the only possible explanations for building collapse is clearly dishonest. She is not stupid, which is the only other explanation I can imagine for her statements.

While the usual thought-stopper of invoking the dreaded term “cold fusion” is an effective (and unfair) way to discredit Steven Jones, former BYU physicist, he was working on muon catalyzed fusion, which was known as “cold fusion” (a well accepted concept and label) long before that moniker was “wished upon” Fleischmann and Pons by the media and a confused bunch of academics who believed that Jones was doing the same thing as P&F. Mocking and “decredentialising” Jones (as you did), who has gone to great lengths to avoid insulting the ridiculously sensitive Wood, does you no credit.

To maintain that Wood’s book of mostly photos is “the only forensic investigation” of the WTC destruction in the public domain is beyond ludicrous. Nanothermite is a real weapon, developed by US military contractors: http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf
This peer-reviewed published article is all forensic analysis, of many appropriate kinds. We see hard evidence, replication of the investigation, many scientist authors of the article, publication in many venues and much discussion by qualified individuals. I conclude that the active thermetic material found in the dust must have been produced in a very well equipped lab. It certainly did not spontaneously form from a destructive event. Chemical reactions are not spontaneously driven in the direction of creating more complex and unstable energetic compounds, like thermite, quite the opposite. Explosions do not decrease entropy.

Thanks for your reply. I don’t want to hijack this thread but would appreciate a little clarification.

“At first, she was friendly and helpful. That lasted until I expressed some questions about her thinking, when she became very defensive and un-helpful.”
To me, this sounds like you were questioning Dr Wood’s abilities as opposed to the validity of the evidence. Defensive and un-helpful might be expected responses from such an action. I’ve listened to Dr Wood respond to a number of belligerent questioners and in each instance, she has only replied by presenting the evidence, not her ideas, but the facts freely available in the public domain. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that you have evidence that I’ve yet to encounter that counters the evidence presented in Dr Wood’s book and, if so, please point me in the right direction.

“The physical evidence for melted steel is simply undeniable.”
Apparently, you have not read the book or watched the many presentations available on this subject by Dr Wood. The physical evidence for melted steel is non-existent. The photo and sensor evidence for pools of molten steel are easily refuted and indeed all of this is pointed out in the book, etc, but you can do it all by yourself just by having the important information and applying logic to it. If you have read the book or watched the presentations, what magic ingredient is missing that allows humans to work on top of a steel furnace, fire hoses and rain to build puddles in the wreckage without exploding into steam and for sheets of paper to lie unburnt?

“For Wood to reach a CONCLUSION that [the Hutchinson Effect] and other mysterious effects can be the only possible explanations for building collapse is clearly dishonest.”
Once again, if you’d read the book, you’d know that this statement is clearly incorrect. Dr Wood doesn’t make this claim. She shows how the evidence proves that the towers were not destroyed by either explosive or thermal force; they weren’t pulverized or melted, and then she shows that technology does exist that causes similar effects to what we saw on the day, and that the technology has been in the hands of government agencies for a long time. The destruction of the towers proves the existence of such a weapon, not the reverse.

“Mocking and “decredentialising” Jones (as you did)”
I did decredentialise Jones as, IMO, he has more than proved that he deserves no respect after his successful scuttling of the Pons and Fleischmann research and his tireless efforts to divert attention away from the real evidence with his nano-thermite ruse. Dr Steven E Jones is discredited by his own words and actions, so much of which is available on YouTube or other internet sources for anyone to peruse. For example, https://youtu.be/RG3i-Ymm3Uc?t=2m23s.

“To maintain that Wood’s book of mostly photos is “the only forensic investigation” of the WTC destruction in the public domain is beyond ludicrous.”
In evidence, you present the well-hyped nano-thermite peer-reviewed paper which amounts to a lot of people studying dust while all around them lies the real evidence of the destruction of the towers, evidence that nano-thermite can’t even touch. You state that “Nanothermite is a real weapon, developed by US military contractors” but where is the evidence of this? Where is even one other forensic investigation into the whole of the WTC destruction. Even NIST admitted that they didn’t investigate the destruction of the towers – only up to the beginning of the so-called collapse.

I can accept that personality clashes amongst professionals is likely to happen but after all this time, let’s get over it and start examining the evidence on its own merit.

The context of this discussion is one that recognizes the reality of false flag, psyop, etc. history. If WTC demo was part of a psyop, then people posting here are reasonably expected to be agents of agendas which would seem ridiculous in a less bizarre world. That being the case, this cannot be treated as a mere academic discussion. We are the objects of intense and merciless disinformation, because it is expedient.

People really do make decisions from Realpolitik perspective, and that is the kind of justification used for distorting valid scientific data. In this case, I cannot claim expertise. I took in enough of Dr. Wood, with at least an hour on her website over a few visits and a few emails exchanged, to consider it highly unlikely that fruitful discussion would ensue.

To explain a physical event in terms of physics that the government must have available (Hutchison) and is unspecified, is to brainstorm, not theorize. It is like saying that the buildings were destroyed by decades accumulation of chewing gum that suddenly, due to a not yet understood phenomenon, became nitroglycerine. Now, disprove that!

The premises cannot be assumed to be valid, and assumptions must be enumerated and explored. I saw nothing like that, from what I recall. My memory is not perfect, and I do not wish to demean the character of an academic whom I failed to understand, but that seems unlikely.

Why would you say the nanothermite paper is well-hyped? If you simply look at the photos and spectrometry, this is hard and very significant data. Now, perhaps the dust was really something that was created by Mossad agents, trying to get even with Putin, to provide support to the argument that the towers were not destroyed by death rays from space (a reasonable description of the term Wood used, ‘directed energy’). Is it not more likely that the dust was collected and provided as stated in the forensic research, repeated by several investigators, and published?

It is plausible that psyoperators would use the vast scientific ignorance of US culture (or simply hi-jacked minds) to shut down 911 truth efforts. It is plausible that Dr. Wood realized that such psyoperators exist and if they wind up on the side that wins, then they were right, as the much praised Machiavelli might say it. There has to be a reason that she cannot see melted (and vaporized) steel. Oh, yeah, that must be in her book.

When a defender of a thesis resorts to saying over and over, ‘you just need to read our book’ (this is typical of Wood supporters), of the glorious revelations that await your eyes, if you JUST LOOK, I then turn on the disposal because the drain is getting clogged.

I’ve seen ads for electric thermite matches in professional trade journals, for igniting thermite charges, found in ads in other journals. Ryan and others have assembled such references. It is only a very likely avenue for technology to take. It would be unthinkable that nanothermite would not exist, to be able to tailor make the explosive/incendiary properties of a warhead, would make Pentagon planners salivate. Nanothermite can obviously be done, it obviously was created.

What do you call a forensic investigation? The investigation done by David Chandler, which led to NIST admitting free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds of WTC7 collapse proved that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition. To cling to Woods’ apron strings and insist that she is the only one who has investigated forensically is sheer disinformation on your part.

It is possible to just keep repeating the same stuff, like there is not enough gold available to have a gold backed currency, and if it gets the nod from the powers that shouldn’t be, it takes on the appearance of validity. Yep, people disregard Dr. Wood because (whatever), and that’s why they ignore her. Oh, yeah, and read her book, and then you’ll know why. This tactic would maintain a certain noise level and uncertainty in the discussion and in the minds of the curious. We have limited attention spans.

The notion that Jones scuttled F&P is absurd. F&P were forced under vicious scrutiny caused by not having a published paper at the time of their 3/23/89 press conference. They were wrong about neutrons. Validations were not very forthcoming. A vendetta was launched and succeeded, very well documented by my boss, but it was not Jones doing. I was working for Dr. Eugene Mallove, owner of Cold Fusion Technology after the scuttling of F&P. That claim about Jones only became supposedly credible a few years ago, conceivably as a way to undermine his 911 work. The politics of the firestorm were much more complex than can be appreciated quickly.

So your answer to my points is to dissemble and denigrate. Am I to understand that you worked for or with Dr Steven Jones and are not just a person who might actually be an engineer who’s hanging out at Corbett Reports because of an earnest desire to seek truth?

Regardless of what qualifications you may have, your words say enough about your calibre as a scientist and a human. Is it possible that Mr Corbett has gone the way of so many before him and turned gatekeeper? Or are you a parasite waiting to be exposed and expelled?

Apparently, Corbett is not gatekeeping, because you are still posting.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy of the idea that Jones was some nefarious agent “scuttling” cold fusion. If you will accept that so uncritically, what are we to believe of your wholesale acceptance of Dr. Wood’s claims? My contention is not so much to attack Dr. Wood, but to point out that there are quite possible dire political motivations indicated.

Where did you get the notion that I worked for Steven Jones? I have had no direct communication with Steven Jones. I recognize Jones as a credible physicist who put his career on the line to bring much needed attention to the WTC anomalies and who previously worked on muon-catalyzed fusion. I worked for Dr. Eugene Mallove, editor of ‘Infinite Energy’ magazine, and owner of Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. I also worked with Steve Krivit, editor of New Energy Times.http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/StevenEJones/JonesVote.shtml

This page documents how Jones and others voted to discredit Fleischmann and Pons. This may support your contention of Jones’ scuttling of F&P, but the gist of the matter is that there was panic to grab as much intellectual property as possible. The administrations of BYU and U of Utah were the ones doing the competing. The faculty members were pawns.

As was obvious, and became more obvious, F&P were not at all prepared for that fateful press conference (3/23/89). Shooting them down was easy, and the scientists who did so were doing what academics must do: recognize shoddy work and denounce it. How can I label the work of F&P shoddy? They had no paper published or even ready for publication. To do this when making such extraordinary claims was very dangerous. Other scientists were trying to replicate their work using copied VHS of MacNeil-Lehrer News reports of F&P snippets. Even when they were ready to publish, the administration did not encourage revealing too much, out of fear they would lose the head-start they had in some imaginary race they were running.

So, why would unprepared F&P call a press conference? Because the U. of Utah administration believed that Jones might scoop them, so they forced F&P to do the press conference as an attempt to claim priority over BYU and Jones. Fleischmann was quite outspoken concerning this, and he did everything he could to stop the press conference. He believed that the work should have been classified. The criticisms that were leveled against F&P for doing “science by press conference” were perfectly appropriate and the rage against them in the scientific establishment grew solid roots. The broadside from MIT after their researchers published falsified data from the MIT fusion lab’s replication of the F&P experiment, falsified to make the anomaly disappear, destroyed F&P in the US, so they physically moved to a much more receptive Japan, and eventually France, to continue their work. Eugene Mallove resigned in protest because as Chief Science Writer for MIT at that time, he did not wish to be part of such dirty politics.

Jones’ research was based on accepted theory that was being explored. It was good science, shared with colleagues, trying to push the envelope. Muon catalyzed fusion was not at all what F&P were thinking. They were working, without revealing their work to anyone else, in their homes, with their own money, because they knew what they were doing was more like a hunch than a well understood approach, an academically acceptable hypothesis. They simply used electrolysis to load as much deuterium nuclei into the lattice of a metal that would accept it (palladium). That loading process was very well established by much empirical evidence. The idea that proximity of the deuterium nuclei in the metal lattice might lead to hydrogen fusion was a notion that developed into a belief when excess heat began to happen in their simple apparatus. It was a wrong belief, most likely, but the anomalous heat, the tritium (especially), and various elemental transmutations, etc. added up to evidence that indicates likely significant gaps in current accepted physical understanding.

By the time of the press conference, F&P had moved their experiments into U of Utah facilities, and informed the administration (obviously), and were producing remarkable results, including one quite energetic explosion (inadvertently), and a number of runs where the excess heat was so high that it would boil off the electrolyte after power was disconnected. Such experiments, performed by a great many other researchers (www.lenr.org) have a record of difficulty and inconsistency. To me, this indicates that, although there has been something of a recipe developed (like from Dr. Dennis Cravens and Dr. Dennis Letts) to give somewhat reliable outcomes, there is no real clear understanding of theory to explain what is observed (some, like Widom and Larsen, would disagree).

Also, see the documentary, ‘Fire From Water’, produced by Mallove, for some valuable interview material. It’s on Netflix.

Nicely argued, waldo234. No doubt you will be able to do an excellent refutation of all criticism of Dr Steven Jones, who’s purpose in life over the last several decades appears to have been interfering in other people’s work instead of producing anything useful (and I include the nano-thermite paper in that.)

I would like to say something about Steven’s response to private streets. In previous QFC I had a question , which was not exactly about the roads but was more about how to control powerful companies, entities in stateless society.

“Stairs problem” is in fact already solved with the right of Easement. I think it’s a good solution and public ownership of stairs would just make another problems like who is in charge of maintenance… Private street you are mentioning is in fact dead end street with almost no usefulness for public. If you are showing this as a case for private roads then it is not overstretched for me to say that this is not a street or a road but just paved backyard of owners involved.
Regarding “evil capitalist overcharging” we can just look at medical industry. Of course it is highly regulated industry and some part can be attributed to this, but not everything. People want to be healthy, to stay alive and medical industry is abusing this. There are more cases: market manipulation in California electricity crisis , or recent oil prices manipulation and many more known and unknown. Do you really think all of these would be impossible in genuine free market? I’m not proponent of planned economy but on the other hand I’m not praising free markets.

In previous QFC James gave a link to very interesting article The Myth of Natural Monopoly . I found some flaws in it.
Article is building its case on positive free market examples from 19th and beginning of 20th century and showing how regulation distorted free markets later. What is not mentioned is substantial change of basic circumstances. In the first period there were expanding markets, expansion to the West, growing cities, big immigration, new not established industries, unsaturated markets, lots of opportunities…Situation now is almost the opposite. Arguing that something that worked then will certainly work now or in the future in different circumstances is unsubstantiated. The only thing that is certain in economy: you cannot be sure until you try.
Next problematic claim in the article is in section “The problem of excessive duplication”. There is a claim that government can’t determine correct price for using public land for infrastructure because of “impossibility of rational economic calculation within socialistic institutions”. Only with privately owned land such a calculation is possible they claim. The truth is that no one has all the information needed to make Calculation. Problem is usually solved with auction and this can be done with publicly or privately owned land. Otherwise, in case of one infrastructure investor, government or private owner arbitrarily decide how much they are demanding from investor or, maybe, are they accepting investors offer. Also, in case of absolute land property right there wouldn’t be many oil pipelines I believe. There are not many owners who would risk an oil leak on their land.
Praising of completion in the article (more then 100 instances) bothers me most, especially when thinking about usefulness of solutions proposed in stateless society.
Competition is double-edged sword. It can provide best products and services for best price. But companies to get competitive advantage can resort to strategies, which are bad for society. For example lowering wages, exporting jobs, destruction of environment,….
Competition also leads to bankruptcies that are not just private problem. With every bankruptcy at least some wealth is lost and that is bad for society.
And finally, I’m quite sure stateless society will be much more about cooperation – not one instance present in the article. Cooperation, the opposite of competition.
There is an interesting article The case against the competition . But I believe the path of wisdom lays somewhere in between.

The medical profession is a highly regulated industry in most countries with little competition allowed. There is nothing “capitalist” about it. Anyone brave enough to challenge the status quo works outside the protective legal immunity that the system affords to the faithful practitioners.

Likewise, electricity and oil are also regulated markets and are fairly free from entrepreneurial competition. Similarly, waste disposal, water supply, air travel and transport, and a list as long as your arm. We can only guess what solutions would be in place already if free market principles ruled.

Look at simple solutions such as Uber, AirB&B, Amazon and eBay. If currency were subject to the free market, we’d still be using gold and silver coins and house prices would be almost equivalent to that of 25 – 50 years ago as governments would have been unable to inflate to the same extent.

Perhaps pipelines and interstate death-traps would be impossible but I suspect that geniuses would have provided acceptable or better solutions. Industrial food providers that currently dominate markets thanks to publicly subsidised roads not only kill off mom and pop farms and shops but leave us more exposed to disastrous breakdowns in the food chain. If industries had to contribute a fair share for the road network, they would be less centralised and better for local employment across the country.

Finally, competition is never bad as long as it’s free of interference. A natural monopoly can arise but will always be under threat if it fails to provide value for money. Competition keeps the suppliers focused and trims the deadwood. Sure, some absolute crap will get produced to wind up as Pacific Ocean flotsam but the alternative is breadlines and starvation, cars that don’t work, nails but no hammers and a million other fiascos courtesy of central planning.

Like you James, I was a young socialist, but in America, not Canada, where it was not the expected, inevitable outcome, but rather a very conscious choice, and also very contrary to the status quo of the Reagan-Bush era. Since then I’ve learned a few things and recently become a huge fan of the Corbett Report! THANKS! Learning about anarchism has definitively shifted my political understandings.

Today I’m more anarcho-socialist than anarcho-capitalist. Don’t be too offended by this, but I am also still a huge fan of anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky (genius linguist and great political activist) in spite of his gate-keeper status, which is, of course, also hard for me to understand.

Anyway, to my volley-back to your end of court on “private staircases”:

Generally there are no extra fees imposed on renters for access to commons-areas such as stairways because it’s impractical to structure “rent” in that manner – a portion of each units total rent is understood to cover a proportional amount of the landlords totals cost-plus-profit for the commons areas, the remaining bulk of the rent covers the same costs-plus-profit for the actual individual unit.

That’s why developers of new multi-unit rental properties seek space-efficient building designs – a well-designed building can add value to the property by minimizing commons costs, especially in the long run, in balance with maximizing the value of size, setting and flow for each unit. There are also other considerations such as targeted market section: hi-end; low-end, etc.

An important structural aspect to this is that the landlord owns the entirety of the domain-property, and commons areas arise out of the logistical need to provide access to individual rental units. Costs from the commons areas are included in the basic rent as convenience to both landlord and renter, but the commons areas themselves usually remain subject to a higher degree of regulation and restriction by the landlord than the individual rental units.

Presumably these regulations were agreed to upon the signing of the lease-contract, whether the renter read that fine print or not! Beyond that “common-laws” provide the landlord with significant powers to define “proper use” as such needs arise, and such laws also address the landlord’s potential liabilities, even beyond the specific scope of the lease-contract.

Inadvertently, the descriptive narrative above delineates a “real” role for the “commons” concept and “commons areas,” albeit within a private arena. A precipitating question would then be, when applied to a public arena, who defines access and restrictions? In practical terms I find the loss of “public commons” tantamount to theft by corporations (“Property is theft.” – Proudhon!)

Imagine a building whose ownership is parsed thus: one sibling inherits the units, the other the commons, including stairways! Do you really expect the “commons-sibling” to acquiesce to no-income from the property? Whether they develop a joint billing system or they each bill separately, I guarantee each will get their “due,” or one will burn the house down (poor tenants!).

I have, in contrast, heard of private roads being off-limits to casual passersby. Wasn’t that the nature of the private road you grew up on? Wasn’t it open to use only by the particular homeowners and their guests (even if enforcement may have been lax or unnecessary)? That would be a very limited scope of consideration. It represents how a “private commons” might function, and seems to beg the question about truly public commons.

The embroiled yet distinct difference between the analogous issues of “private versus public” and “individual property versus commons” is obfuscated, but still present.

In my political activism, including just simply handing out flyers, I have been threatened with police action – the “public” side-walk is OK (sort of, depending); the “private” path, even in a partially-publicly-funded university setting, which is generally open to the public and contiguous with public pathways, are definitely not OK. Of course, in practical terms this reality is heightened depending on the content of ones flyer (i.e., it better not be about 9-11).

Certainly it is a similar case in suburbia as well, where the local mall-complex pretends to be a serene commons in the service of community (that “community” is in fact a substantially atomized (controlled) public, “engineered” to consume on cue). Finding genuine community in America today is a problem, and as you keenly observe, technology will not solve that per se. The internet has changed our sense of community (in some ways for the better), but cannot be a substitute for substantial in-person contacts.

Another observation: intra- and inter-state thru-ways often do have toll-booths. That’s real. It’s not a figment of someone’s imagination or a projection of what might be, theoretically. In fact a valid historical precursor to the potential problems with privatized roadway systems is the example of the “Robber Barons” along the Rhine, their nomenclature later appropriately borrowed to label the industrial magnates of America’s “Golden Age. Vanderbilt’s railways are interesting just from the point of public safety, even more than from the average price of a ticket.

With that I don’t consider this a closed debate. I am not defending “my position.” Obviously I am tending to fall on the side that at least some public commons are both good and necessary, but I’m also very aware that new paradigms for community might (probably will need to?) evolve, and that there are often presently contradictions and structural conflicts within the public commons paradigm, and that the varied tenets of anarchism should inform us along that path.

Regarding Molyneux, your response was refreshingly diplomatic (hmmm – is that an oxymoronic concept?) and I’m glad you limited it as such. That said, (ba-rump-bump), I find Molyneux deceptive in his constructs and an all-around smart guy (translate that as potentially malicious). Beware if you engage in any debate with him- he does not “play fair” – although you could probably mop the place up with him if he pulls that shit on you. Having reviewed a good cross-section of his commentary on YouTube, I find a disturbing arc to it.

Agreeing to disagree is good, even when spirited, as long as it doesn’t just promote bogus conflict and corrupt motivations.

Lastly, I noticed you guys actually said “do do” a couple of times in this pod! – ha!

Private Staircases – keep in mind that each landlord may offer a unique solution to the shared space issue and, market forces being what they are, the better solutions will attract more or better customers, serving as an incentive for other landlords to follow suit. Similar logic applies to private road/rail/etc.

There’s no need to figure out how it would work exactly when the important thing is to establish rule of natural law which is respect for private property which is society based on individual sovereignty.

The UK news is currently dominated by what is being labeled “antisemitism in the Labour Party”. One of the most prominent Socialists ever in UK politics and former Mayor of London, Ken Livingston, has been suspended from the party. This seismic event is actually a battle to topple Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and wholly orchestrated by the zionistic Blairite wing of the party. The Labour Party has always had such internecine shenanigans.
What is interesting is that Ken Livingston stated a reference to historical accuracy that the Nazi Party in 1933 did indeed sign an agreement with Rockefeller funded Zionist movement to facilitate the migration of Jews and their wealth to Palestine. This statement of historical fact, to my knowledge, first appeared in a book by academic historian and the much interviewed US Jew famous for his diligent research Lenni Brenner. The book : http://www.amazon.co.uk/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis-ebook/dp/B00AJGAGL8?ie=UTF8&btkr=1&ref_=dp-kindle-redirect

In it it can be seen that the poor response by ordinary German Jews to the Zionist pressure on them to emigrate to Palestine and hasten the birth of Israel was an unexpected failure for both Nazi and Zionist leadership. Very soon afterwards Hitler went into paranoid madness, as is common among revolutionary leaders from Mohammad to Saddam Hussein to Stalin but to name three. The pogrom, the ghettoes and the ghost trains resulted and Jews never enthusiastic about Zionism were delivered up as a sacrifice to it.

Ken Livingston stands by his statement and says he will clarify it fully soon. Zionism and Antisemitism are under scrutiny for what they mean as words in a way I have never seen on MSM. Even the BBC has produced a beginner’s guide. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36160928
This may have started as a miconcieved effort to topple Corbyn but it is getting a serious amount of coverage that is backfiring spectacularly in that educating people is never a good idea. As such is it evidence that those in MSM who are sick of the Zionist domination of their industry trying to use this as an opportunity to fight back at the root of problem?

This sets up the context within which I was inspired to ask you this question James.
Q: Do you believe Zionist individuals and/or organisations share some culpability for the holocaust?

When are you going to finish the book you are writing on the New World Order?

I am really looking forward to reading it! I am also really looking forward to passing along copies of it to friends. I think giving them a book on this topic instead of just sending them a link would bring more gravitas to it.

Just to elaborate a little:
The reason I visited your site for the first time was because I already knew about the NWO via Edward Griffin and some time later I heard an interview with you on the alt media and I thought: “This guy knows his stuff”. More specifically, I visited your site for the first time because you said in that interview you were writing a book on the NWO and I KNEW I had to read that book. Later I found out you had already said a number of years prior that the book was forthcoming. Therefore I am wondering if you have some kind of concrete plan or concrete steps to finish it, or if I have to keep waiting in limbo, or if I just have to give up on the idea altogether and have peace with that it’s not going to happen? I really really hope the latter is not the case. If you were to ask me, my suggestion would be that the number of videos, articles and podcasts you produce now is enormous so it would be perfectly fine if you would produce a little less on that front so you can make some time free to get the job done. Please just write/finish the book!

As a huge fan of your work, and especially the FLNWO-series, I have a question. Where can I find the early episodes, I understand that you have done episodes about “The Insider” and “Blade runner” But they are no where to be found. Could you please direct me on the right path, or if unavailable, PLEASE re-upload them(!)

#QFC Do you have any episodes of CorbettReport you have had a major change of opinion on? Also, have you had any guests on that you regret because you no longer trust them, don’t believe they were accurate, etc?

#QFC – IIRC, “regular office fires” were blamed for building 7 falling on 9/11. If the official story were true (and I’m not naive enough to think it is) do we know if either building codes or firefighting procedures have changed in the 15 years since?

Additionally, how could it possibly be justified to build the Freedom Tower (the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere) when it was just “proven” that regular office fires can bring down steel framed buildings? (and fwiw, Wikipedia does say that Freedom Tower is steel-framed)

Any idea if these types of questions have been asked of any high level officials and, if so, what the response was?

#QFC – Question regarding the automation of labor. I’ve heard economists talk about how people have worried about this for many years but that their fears are overblown. They argue that automation is always a good thing because it increases productivity, thus lowering the cost to consumers. These same economists, however, also argue that minimum wage laws prevent people from getting on the first rung of the job ladder.

With robots poised to take over a surprising number of industries (even performing surgery), wouldn’t that problem become more widespread? I think economists would counter-argue the “goods will be so much cheaper that you won’t need to earn a lot of money”. However, the cynical side of me wonders if it’s possible that the rich and powerful will try to use that power to dominate society. Even if not, will they even have the incentive to offer these goods for sale (as why bother wasting your precious time selling stuff if you already have a bunch of robots taking care of your needs – including robots that fix other robots).

While I like the idea of that robots can free humans from boring jobs, allowing our species to work on more creative things, it seems like all too often things that have great potential end up getting used for destructive purposes.

In general, I agree that automation has turned out to be beneficial although there have always been up and downsides to it. Automation in agriculture made us more productive, enabled us to sustain larger populations but eventually made the majority of us dependent on the system. If the system was seriously disrupted whether by nature, human error or human intent, millions would probably starve before a balance could be obtained between supply and demand.

The minimum wage increase caused/will cause McDonald’s workers to be replaced with a self-serve menu but will increase the number of staff who have to sort out the general publics’ inability to navigate a menu.

But remember that, in business, cash is king, even if it’s in the form of electronic transactions. Every change becomes a sales opportunity that will be filled by someone as long as government doesn’t intervene to stop it. Innovation usually means that the lower income folk eventually get a chance to participate in every market. Mobile phones were once limited to the wealthy, the business and professional class but now they’re childrens’ necessities.

Automation in the warfare industry however just seems to be all bad. The Gattling Gun turned otherwise nice people into mobile mass murderers and upped the anti leading to a continuous spiral of lethality ever since. The introduction of completely independent warrior drones will no doubt threaten our very existence as the elite in control of them will have an incentive to remove those who threaten their status quo AND when the elites vie for dominance against each other, we’ll quickly become collateral hamburger.

With few exceptions, automation will improve customer access and satisfaction, and open up new opportunities when surplus workers are released for re-employment elsewhere. However, as always happens, the new jobs are low paying until the marketplace starts rewarding their efforts. If employment rules prevent the workforce from meeting the demands, the company will find employees in more flexible countries. In the end, the market always finds an answer.